Enteral Glutamine Supplementation is Associated with Lowering Wound Infection Morbidity and Length of Hospital Stay among Burn Patients: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Significant nutritional support to meet increased energy expenditure is vital for burn patient's survival. Burn injury may lead to a significant decrease in Glutamine levels, which inspired the hypothesis that glutamine supplementation following burn injury would improve outcomes. Hence, the purpose of this meta-analysis study was to provide the rationale for determining the efficacy and safety of enteral glutamine in burn patients. Methods. We conducted a meta-analysis based on PRISMA design to assess the potency of enteral glutamine supplementation as adjuvant treatment in patients with burn trauma. PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Google scholar were searched systematically using the following keywords: "enteral glutamine" and "burn patients" and "critical ill" and "infection" and "length of stay". Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of papers included in our meta-analysis. A Z test was used to determine the significance of pooled effect estimates. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's. We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2.1 to analyze the data. Results: A total of 12 studies recording 344 cases and 335 controls were enrolled for our analysis. Data on hospital Length of Stay (LOS) was found that enteral glutamine supplementation provided a significant result in reducing the LOS (Std mean diff: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.16 – 1.24; p=0.0100). We also found that a higher risk of positive wound culture was significantly observed in patients without the supplementation of enteral glutamine (OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.41 – 3.27; p=0.0003) compared to patients receiving enteral glutamine supplementation among burn patients. Conclusion: In our meta-analysis study, enteral glutamine in burn patients confers significantly shorter LOS and lower risk of wound infection among burn patients. We suggest that enteral glutamine supplementation may be a beneficial intervention for the management of burn patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".